Err... it doesn't actually cost Microsoft more to replicate a copy of Windows with AD functionality. There's no fundamental reason Microsoft has to charge more for that functionality. It's just artificial market segmentation.

This has been covered before on Ars, in the BF specifically if I remember correctly. Yes, MS has spent $X to develop Windows as a whole, but by breaking it out into multiple feature SKUs at different price points they are able to move more units in total. Right now, Win7 Pro at retail is at least $40 more expensive than Win7 Home Premium. Does this mean Home Premium is a "compromised" version? No, it means that 99% of home users don't need AD support or any of the other enterprise features, so you take that stuff out, drop the price, and now you have a product that hits a better price point and will move more units. There's obviously going to be a similar discount (I don't know if it's 30% as well) on OEM volume purchases for the Home Premium SKU vs. Pro. Which means cheaper computers, which means more sales.

If you want to complain about it, the current SKU breakout for Win7 is far more stupid because there's too many different flavors. But MS saying "Hey J6P, we know you don't need AD integration, so here's a version with a 30% discount" isn't making the idea of no compromise a lie, it's just matching the right product and price point to the right customer. But I'm sure if MS came out tomorrow and announced that there would only be a Win8 Ultimate with absolutely everything included, at the current Win7 Ultimate retail price of $200, people would be bitching up a storm saying exactly what I said above, and that MS is gouging home users by forcing them to buy features they'll never need or use.

I'll bet the differences between all the versions is only in the 100,000 lines of code range, tops.

It's not even that, just a registry setting based on the Windows version turning stuff on and off on the fly. Personally I don't have a problem with software being delivered this way, it's features your paying for fundamentally anyway not the physical layout of software, it's when they do stupid stuff like knock out base Windows features on higher-end SKUs that it gets dumb. Oh and when they do dimbulb idiocy like restricting Media Center to Win8 Pro rather than any Win8. I'm hopeful that's just a miscommunication and not a hamfisted attempt to burn the few remaining MCE users, being an MCE user.

I thought the same about MVVM, and I still would not use it on WP7. However I'm dabbling on a personal finance app in WinRT, I've just written a rough version of cash/account registers, and really, going MVVM and data bindings made it a breeze.

IIRC for WPF databinding was handled on the rendering not the UI thread so that aspect of MVVM should be more performant than just poking in the controls directly, in addition it can do stuff like not databinding at all if the control is invisible or offscreen; apologies in advance if SL handles this differently.

it's when they do stupid stuff like knock out base Windows features on higher-end SKUs that it gets dumb

But that's the sort of game-playing that the whole thing was introduced to permit. You can expect it to continue as long asthey do it. And, it's one of the causes of the added complexity.

If they simply had "Windows", the conversation would be simpler all around.

The other part you're overlooking here is that the number of features, though well selected for market segmentation, is going to be pretty darn small, which is a lot of complexity for a little gain for MS (only).

PS, thanks for the tip about registry settings. I should have guessed.

So first statement was: x86 Windows is still a compromise, either performance or portability, regardless of ARM.

Huh?

If the software is the same on the highly portable machines and the high performance machines, how the hell can you say that the software is the compromise?

The hardware might be a compromise, but so what? Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, and the entire issue of hardware compromises is OS-independent. The iPad is tremendously compromised too, and it doesn't even run Windows at all.

It's silly salesmanship. WinRT is obviously compromised, it doesn't have a desktop. If that's a compromise, the whole statement is false. If Windows 8 on tablet isn't compromised, why did they create a new multitasking model in WinRT to begin with? The experience is obviously going to be compromised one way or the other.

But that's the sort of game-playing that the whole thing was introduced to permit. You can expect it to continue as long asthey do it. And, it's one of the causes of the added complexity.

There's a world of difference between paying more for more and paying more for different.

Quote:

If they simply had "Windows", the conversation would be simpler all around.

And I suspect more expensive.

Quote:

The other part you're overlooking here is that the number of features, though well selected for market segmentation, is going to be pretty darn small, which is a lot of complexity

Agreed in this case because Win 8 vs Win8 Pro is a crappy differentiator, Win8 vs Win8 Workstation would be a hell of a lot clearer. In the general case they have to do this wheras Apple don't because Apple already gets paid when you buy the hardware, upgrades are just bonus dosh for them.

It's interesting Apple aren't interested in charging for iOS upgrades, and I suspect Microsoft is on the same plan as Windows RT is missing a version number.

Quote:

PS, thanks for the tip about registry settings. I should have guessed.

So first statement was: x86 Windows is still a compromise, either performance or portability, regardless of ARM.

Huh?

If the software is the same on the highly portable machines and the high performance machines, how the hell can you say that the software is the compromise?

The hardware might be a compromise, but so what? Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, and the entire issue of hardware compromises is OS-independent. The iPad is tremendously compromised too, and it doesn't even run Windows at all.

It's silly salesmanship. WinRT is obviously compromised, it doesn't have a desktop. If that's a compromise, the whole statement is false. If Windows 8 on tablet isn't compromised, why did they create a new multitasking model in WinRT to begin with? The experience is obviously going to be compromised one way or the other.

So first statement was: x86 Windows is still a compromise, either performance or portability, regardless of ARM.

Huh?

If the software is the same on the highly portable machines and the high performance machines, how the hell can you say that the software is the compromise?

The hardware might be a compromise, but so what? Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, and the entire issue of hardware compromises is OS-independent. The iPad is tremendously compromised too, and it doesn't even run Windows at all.

It's silly salesmanship. WinRT is obviously compromised, it doesn't have a desktop.

So first statement was: x86 Windows is still a compromise, either performance or portability, regardless of ARM.

Huh?

If the software is the same on the highly portable machines and the high performance machines, how the hell can you say that the software is the compromise?

The hardware might be a compromise, but so what? Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, and the entire issue of hardware compromises is OS-independent. The iPad is tremendously compromised too, and it doesn't even run Windows at all.

It's silly salesmanship. WinRT is obviously compromised, it doesn't have a desktop.

WinRT or Windows RT? Windows RT has a desktop.

Furthermore, you can use WinRT from desktop apps. So it doesn't make sense in either context.

So first statement was: x86 Windows is still a compromise, either performance or portability, regardless of ARM.

Huh?

If the software is the same on the highly portable machines and the high performance machines, how the hell can you say that the software is the compromise?

The hardware might be a compromise, but so what? Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, and the entire issue of hardware compromises is OS-independent. The iPad is tremendously compromised too, and it doesn't even run Windows at all.

It's silly salesmanship. WinRT is obviously compromised, it doesn't have a desktop.

WinRT or Windows RT? Windows RT has a desktop.

Furthermore, you can use WinRT from desktop apps. So it doesn't make sense in either context.

WinRT the OS! How else should I abbreviate it?! Is it too late to call it WinRT.net?

WinRT doesn't have a desktop that can run Steam and Itunes (will it even run Chrome?), so for the consumer market it is functionally useless. Let me know if you have usage stats that disprove this.

WinRT the OS! How else should I abbreviate it?! Is it too late to call it WinRT.net?

Are you really that fucking lazy?

Quote:

WinRT doesn't have a desktop that can run Steam and Itunes (will it even run Chrome?), so for the consumer market it is functionally useless. Let me know if you have usage stats that disprove this.

Windows RT has a desktop, but it can't run x86 apps because it doesn't use x86 processors.

I don't think the consumer market gives a shit. It doesn't give a shit about not being able to run iTunes or Chrome on its iPad, so why would it give a fuck about not being able to run them on Windows equivalents?

I don't think the consumer market gives a shit. It doesn't give a shit about not being able to run iTunes or Chrome on its iPad, so why would it give a fuck about not being able to run them on Windows equivalents?

I don't think we can conclude what the marketplace wants when the choice is taken away from them.

All we can conclude is they bought the device. For all we know, "30 per cent" really want Chrome on their iPad. Sure, 30 is made up, but absent the actual experiment, we don't know what the number is. We just know they're making do with what they got. Not the same thing.

Just because one likes a product enough to buy it doesn't mean one likes everything about it or agrees with all choices made. Or, here, doesn't wish for that which isn't available.

Since when? I showed a link from a MSFTer that said otherwise, so why do you say this?

You can actually use part of WinRT.

Now that doesn't mean much, since the UI stuff makes the majority of WinRT, and you can NOT use it on the desktop. Which is stupid, because a) it replicates the majority of WPF and is probably more performant, and b) seems to work well enough in a window, if you hack your app to start in one.

I don't think the consumer market gives a shit. It doesn't give a shit about not being able to run iTunes or Chrome on its iPad, so why would it give a fuck about not being able to run them on Windows equivalents?

I don't think we can conclude what the marketplace wants when the choice is taken away from them.

All we can conclude is they bought the device. For all we know, "30 per cent" really want Chrome on their iPad. Sure, 30 is made up, but absent the actual experiment, we don't know what the number is. We just know they're making do with what they got. Not the same thing.

Just because one likes a product enough to buy it doesn't mean one likes everything about it or agrees with all choices made. Or, here, doesn't wish for that which isn't available.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

Fair enough, but I think in this case it's pretty clear cut. The iPad pretty much gets everything right. Despite the cliche, sometimes less really is more. You'll be hard pressed to find an iPad user who wishes they had desktop access on it.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

Fair enough, but I think in this case it's pretty clear cut. The iPad pretty much gets everything right. Despite the cliche, sometimes less really is more. You'll be hard pressed to find an iPad user who wishes they had desktop access on it.

No, you're still doing it. I can say "sure, but you'll be hard pressed to find a patient with small cell lung cancer who doesn't smoke, therefore cancer causes smoking". I (or you) might be right, or might be wrong, but the logic is wrong because the pool of cancer patient/ipad owners is distinct from the general population. Does that make sense?

"sure, but you'll be hard pressed to find a patient with small cell lung cancer who doesn't smoke, therefore cancer causes smoking

That's... actually not true at all. It's quite easy to find lung cancer patients who haven't smoked or lived with someone who smoked.

Essentially all small cell lung cancer is caused by tobacco smoking, with a very small number of additional cases caused second hand smoke (usually people living with smokers). You would, in fact, have quite a lot of trouble finding a patient with it in a typical clinic who did not smoke.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

Fair enough, but I think in this case it's pretty clear cut. The iPad pretty much gets everything right. Despite the cliche, sometimes less really is more. You'll be hard pressed to find an iPad user who wishes they had desktop access on it.

No, you're still doing it. I can say "sure, but you'll be hard pressed to find a patient with small cell lung cancer who doesn't smoke, therefore cancer causes smoking". I (or you) might be right, or might be wrong, but the logic is wrong because the pool of cancer patient/ipad owners is distinct from the general population. Does that make sense?

Right, I get what you mean. I can't find a suitable way to rephrase what I was trying to convey though lol. I'll concede.

Yeah I started to type out P(A|B) != P(A) for all B, but decided an example might be more clear

The problem of course is that you don't know if people who don't have an iPad don't have one because they wanted something more capable or not. If they didn't buy one because they wanted higher resolution screens or something, then it might be true anyway. But if they didn't buy an ipad because they bought a macbook instead, then you'd come to the wrong conclusion.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

Fair enough, but I think in this case it's pretty clear cut. The iPad pretty much gets everything right. Despite the cliche, sometimes less really is more. You'll be hard pressed to find an iPad user who wishes they had desktop access on it.

Why should we trust your instincts? You still believe that "there really are no other tablet options but iPad" despite two studies showing more than 4 out of 10 tablet buyers walked out with something else.

Your fanwankery for iPads is noted, but it's distracting you heavily from the reality of the situation.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

Fair enough, but I think in this case it's pretty clear cut. The iPad pretty much gets everything right. Despite the cliche, sometimes less really is more. You'll be hard pressed to find an iPad user who wishes they had desktop access on it.

No, you're still doing it. I can say "sure, but you'll be hard pressed to find a patient with small cell lung cancer who doesn't smoke, therefore cancer causes smoking". I (or you) might be right, or might be wrong, but the logic is wrong because the pool of cancer patient/ipad owners is distinct from the general population. Does that make sense?

Right, I get what you mean. I can't find a suitable way to rephrase what I was trying to convey though lol. I'll concede.

I think what you're trying to convey is that you love the way the iPad does things and any other way is worse, and that this is fact/consensus.

4 out of 10 people did NOT buy an iPad when they bought a tablet. 4 out of 10. 4 out of 10.

ZZ, consumer satisfaction figures for the iPad are through the roof. Thats all the evidence you need that iPad users could give a damn about running Chrome or iTunes on their tablets.

Without getting involved in ZZ's argument, I'd like to point out that this is not sound reasoning. You can't take a subset of a whole that bought something, and then use them as an unbiased estimate of the whole. The fact that they bought something that other people didn't means that there are differences.

You're basically doing that thing where you find a group of people who have lung cancer, note that half of them are smokers and decide that lung cancer causes smoking

Fair enough, but I think in this case it's pretty clear cut. The iPad pretty much gets everything right. Despite the cliche, sometimes less really is more. You'll be hard pressed to find an iPad user who wishes they had desktop access on it.

Why should we trust your instincts? You still believe that "there really are no other tablet options but iPad" despite two studies showing more than 4 out of 10 tablet buyers walked out with something else.

Your fanwankery for iPads is noted, but it's distracting you heavily from the reality of the situation.

Actally, I don't own an iPad. I don't even like iPads so I'll never own one. But the point is, there may be something wrong with my tastes, judging by the success of the thing.

Yeah I started to type out P(A|B) != P(A) for all B, but decided an example might be more clear

The problem of course is that you don't know if people who don't have an iPad don't have one because they wanted something more capable or not. If they didn't buy one because they wanted higher resolution screens or something, then it might be true anyway. But if they didn't buy an ipad because they bought a macbook instead, then you'd come to the wrong conclusion.

Actually, I think that in the original context YoungHov was actually correct. ZZ said:

Quote:

I don't think we can conclude what the marketplace wants when the choice is taken away from them.

All we can conclude is they bought the device. For all we know, "30 per cent" really want Chrome on their iPad. Sure, 30 is made up, but absent the actual experiment, we don't know what the number is. We just know they're making do with what they got. Not the same thing.

Just because one likes a product enough to buy it doesn't mean one likes everything about it or agrees with all choices made. Or, here, doesn't wish for that which isn't available.

So ZZ is only talking about the group which bought an iPad. I.e. the group of people who didn't buy one (i.e. 40% buying Android, and lots of people buying nothing) is irrelevant

But OTOH, I still think the argument that the high satisfaction among the iPad users shows anything is wrong. You might like it a lot, but still want it to have additional capabilities.

Last I heard, the only things supported were a handful of function calls for debugging and similar tasks (i.e. things necessary for application development). Have they added to that?

I can only tell you what I've tried. Reference the WinMD files and you can use the APIs. How useful that'll be remains to be seen. I was trying to get a XAML app in a window going a while ago, but failed because I haven't found a way to initialize a core window properly.

Windows RT has a desktop, but it can't run x86 apps because it doesn't use x86 processors.

A fact that which everyone knows by now. Few expected that, but what they didn't expect is that the possibility of anyone other than MS developing desktop apps for it is virtually *nil*.

Office isn't enough - there is a whole suite of smaller desktop apps that help me work better in Office that are as essential as Office itself. Just having the bare desktop and allowing Office really doesn't change much, for me at least.

Quote:

I don't think the consumer market gives a shit. It doesn't give a shit about not being able to run iTunes or Chrome on its iPad, so why would it give a fuck about not being able to run them on Windows equivalents?

The question is rather: If WinRT tablets have the same restrictions as the Ipad (but with far smaller and less mature software available out of the gate), then is it compelling enough? Desktop mode was supposed to the carrot, but now it's crippled. So...what? What's the allure of the WinRT tablet then as compared to the iPad? I doubt it's going to be the hardware, no way can PC OEM's compete with Apple's design. Nokia...? Maybe.

Last I heard, the only things supported were a handful of function calls for debugging and similar tasks (i.e. things necessary for application development). Have they added to that?

I can only tell you what I've tried. Reference the WinMD files and you can use the APIs. How useful that'll be remains to be seen. I was trying to get a XAML app in a window going a while ago, but failed because I haven't found a way to initialize a core window properly.

I'm guessing that there's a pretty big gap between "what's supported" and "what may just happen to work, if you hack around enough". Like, the inability to use new C++ XAML in a window isn't a "defect" and won't be "fixed" because they don't care. Someone might figure out a way to hack it into working, but it'll be just that: a hack.

We have received a number of inquiries in this area. The documentation will be expanding as the Windows 8 project progresses to include more API specific details.

It is possible to use WinRT from Desktop applications. WinRT APIs may be tied to Metro style apps, Desktop apps or potentially available to both. The documentation will list which environments (Desktop, Metro style or both) a given API works in.

Note: Custom WinRT components are only supported in Metro style applications. They are not supported in Desktop applications.

Did Microsoft run out of time with Windows RT?Analyst argues that Windows RT is all Microsoft could create before it fell further behind in tablet race

"This is pure speculation on my part, but it seems like they had to make a trade-off with Windows RT," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, a Kirkland, Wash.-based research firm that specializes in tracking Microsoft's moves. "What we're hearing now about Windows RT is a function of time and how they wanted the thing to behave. It seems to me that the a key goal was to get battery life decent and keep the weight [of devices] down."